401–410 of 579 posts
375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.
Name and shame the managers and leadership at this time. I dream of a world where they'd be recognized and shamed in the streets for all the damage they've done to society. Instead they get to do all kinds of side quests with their money.
Naming and shaming won't do much good. It could backfire and serve as a positive mark on their resume for other morally corrupt leaders.
375 million awarded at $5000 per child harmed. Implying that only 75,000 children were harmed. Got away with it again, good profit, will repeat.
Tststs.. it's only allowed to harm adults and the environment for profit.
As part of the ongoing enshittification of the internet, tragedy of the commons etc., these big centralized internet platforms decided that instead of being responsible and making their products *slightly* less terrible it was better to maximize short term engagement metrics, and that, egotistically, the chance of there being real consequences for their actions was near zero. (Or, even more cynically, that their year…
What's horribly frustrating with the age ID stuff is that the issue at question with Meta wasn't that they didn't know what they were doing and that they were doing it to children. They did. This wasn't an issue of "If only they had the the age, then they could have done the right thing". The laws being passed target exactly the wrong thing that wasn't a problem. They should have been passing "duty to care" laws aime…
Now we're just moving on to a kind of moral panic think-of-the-kids kind of moment that is thinly-veiled state surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If history is any indication, only demonstrable threat of personal erasure will affect the behavior of people on this scale. By "erasure," I'm not referring to the death of the involved; I'm referring to the elimination of the individual's social capital. When the privileged lose their ability to influence others, they tend to get rather distressed.
How would we do that here? Make Zuckerberg divest from FB or Meta as a whole? Would that be possible?
I would love to see some justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like all metrics, they fluctuate over time. But they've remained pretty for decades stable at around 10 per 100k per year. The recent rise doesn't really coincide with social media adoption. By 2008, >80% of teens were using social media. If social media adoption was driving the increase in suicides, we would have started to see a rise in suicides around the early 2000s, reaching it's peak around 2008. But that adopt…
> If social media adoption was driving the increase in suicides, we would have started to see a rise in suicides around the early 2000s, reaching it's peak around 2008. I think there is a logical fallacy here. Social media has not remained stable since 2008. For one thing, 2008 social media used the chronological timeline. For another, it didn't show "recommended" (or sponsored) content in your feed. There was no Tik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The teen suicide statistics do not lie. Teen suicide rates in the US are lower now than they were in the 1990s.
The world is bigger than the US. Anyway you can go on HN and deny there is a problem but you will lose public opinion and crucially the voting booth.
Name and shame the managers and leadership at this time. I dream of a world where they'd be recognized and shamed in the streets for all the damage they've done to society. Instead they get to do all kinds of side quests with their money.
I'd much rather they get personally fined and/or banned from holding leadership positions in the field (with varying timeframes depending on the level of responsibility). Naming and shaming won't do much good. It could backfire and serve as a positive mark on their resume for other morally corrupt leaders.